Proof of inferior optics

[Johann Espiritu]

Some photos from my clearly inferior Konica Dual Hexanon 21/35. I'm sure I'd have done better using a Tri-Elmar.


Konichiwa by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Scrutiny by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Tokyo by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr

 

[Ansel]

If you read the full article instead of taking sentences out of context you will see that Ken speaks very highly of this lens.

 

[Archlich]

Whatever he speaks of the lens, he starts with the judgement "inferior".

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Fuji has made cameras for Hasselblad, and sold under the Hasselblad name, like the X-Pan."
For a given value of "made". They were made for both Fuji and Hasselblad by another camera manufacturer, not as well known, but very highly regarded. Alas I had the impression that the third manufacturer didn't want this bruited abroad too much.

The truth is that many manufacturers make/made parts for one another, and often whole cameras, though rarely as high-end as the Xpan.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ansel]

Whatever he speaks of the lens, he starts with the judgement "inferior".

No he doesn't. He starts of with "This Konica lens is more than capable of creating fantastic images."

And later starts with: "This is the lightest 35mm lens ever made for LEICA. It's also the smallest M-mount 35mm lens ever made for LEICA. It's fast, and a great lens for shooting just about anything."

The "inferior" comments were in relation to certain Leica lenses. Which is fair enough. He did the testing and published his findings.

 

[Highway 61]

When shooting on film and unless you use Technical Pan @ISO25 developed in Technidol (if you have NOS of both), all lenses (but for well known dogs made by some third party companies) have a resolving power (measured in pairs of lines per mm) superior to any film/developer couple.

So those inferior/superior comments all have to be taken with a grain of salt.

For instance, Leica nuts would be floored with what a $30 Tokina 135/2.8 lens can deliver.

In front of digital sensors, things are different and, yes, some of those lenses now prove themselves to be "inferior".

 

[Ansel]

When shooting on film and unless you use Technical Pan @ISO25 developed in Technidol (if you have NOS of both), all lenses (but for well known dogs made by some third party companies) have a resolving power (measured in pairs of lines per mm) superior to any film/developer couple.

So those inferior/superior comments all have to be taken with a grain of salt.

For instance, Leica nuts would be floored with what a $30 Tokina 135/2.8 lens can deliver.

In front of digital sensors, things are different and, yes, some of those lenses now prove themselves to be "inferior".

Yes I agree.. Which I guess is why he qualified his comments with "If you're counting pixels..."

 

[Johann Espiritu]

Ahhhh, the RED dot strikes again

I can see the red dot in the photo! 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Very funny, Mike!
Which camera took that picture?

 

[mfunnell]

Very funny, Mike!
Which camera took that picture?

With some trepidation (I really want to avoid the threat of the 43mm filter thread discussion 😱) I'll answer by saying: an M type 240.

...Mike

 

[mfunnell]

Ahhhh, the RED dot strikes again

Just think of it as The Lidless Eye of Sauron. There's a reason I've covered mine with a touch of electrical tape ... some find that thought a tad uncomfortable (especially in this post-Snowden era).

...Mike

 

[charjohncarter]

When shooting on film and unless you use Technical Pan @ISO25 developed in Technidol (if you have NOS of both), all lenses (but for well known dogs made by some third party companies) have a resolving power (measured in pairs of lines per mm) superior to any film/developer couple.

So those inferior/superior comments all have to be taken with a grain of salt.

For instance, Leica nuts would be floored with what a $30 Tokina 135/2.8 lens can deliver.

In front of digital sensors, things are different and, yes, some of those lenses now prove themselves to be "inferior".

I don't know much about lenses, but aren't some film 35mm lens fine with film but have color and edge sharpness problems when used on digital. I think I read that film wides don't do as well on digital, especially RF wides on mirrorless or RF digital.

 

[semilog]

A 100% unconverted, unsharpened crop…

At what f/stop? Almost any lens is good at f/5.6 and smaller, and most lenses are good enough for most purposes.

That said, you're exciting aliasing in the small type, an indication of high resolution and a reminder of why competent sensor designers use low-pass filters or other methods to suppress aliasing.

 

[kermaier]

Just think of it as The Lidless Eye of Sauron. There's a reason I've covered mine with a touch of electrical tape ... some find that thought a tad uncomfortable (especially in this post-Snowden era).

...Mike

I guess it would've been a bit much to cover the red dot on that truck with gaffer's tape.... 😀

 

[kermaier]

"Fuji has made cameras for Hasselblad, and sold under the Hasselblad name, like the X-Pan."
For a given value of "made". They were made for both Fuji and Hasselblad by another camera manufacturer, not as well known, but very highly regarded. Alas I had the impression that the third manufacturer didn't want this bruited abroad too much.

The truth is that many manufacturers make/made parts for one another, and often whole cameras, though rarely as high-end as the Xpan.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, I wonder whether Ken R. considers the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM lens to be a crappy Japanese knock-off from Cosina or a holy artifact of German engineering. 🙄

 

[ZeissFan]

Regarding the 40mm Sonnar for the Rollei 35 RF, I had read that the lens elements were made in Japan (likely by Cosina, which made the body) with final assembly of the lens being done in Germany. However, I don't remember if "final assembly" included the lens barrel.

Either way, it's a great lens.

The entire Japan vs. Germany argument also came up frequently during the release of the Zeiss Ikon camera.

 

[porktaco]

 

[Scrambler]

Regarding the 40mm Sonnar for the Rollei 35 RF, I had read that the lens elements were made in Japan (likely by Cosina, which made the body) with final assembly of the lens being done in Germany. However, I don't remember if "final assembly" included the lens barrel.

If you mean, "Was the lens barrel made in Japan?" the answer is "Yes." It's a standard Cosina Voigtlaender barrel and the lens cap and hood are interchangeable with some CV lenses e.g. the 21/4.

Either way, it's a great lens.

Agreed. 🙂

The entire Japan vs. Germany argument also came up frequently during the release of the Zeiss Ikon camera.

And Zeiss' position is the right one IMHO: it doesn't matter WHERE, it matters HOW it was made.

 

[mfunnell]

At what f/stop? Almost any lens is good at f/5.6 and smaller, and most lenses are good enough for most purposes.

[hand-held; shot casually at f4]

That said, you're exciting aliasing in the small type, an indication of high resolution and a reminder of why competent sensor designers use low-pass filters or other methods to suppress aliasing.

Maybe. There are arguments for and against on that one.

...Mike

 

[Dektol Dan]

Okay, I've read it all to here...

Okay, I've read it all to here...

Ken Rockwell is neither Obama or Rush Limbaugh. Fox news is all about opinion and blame (like this thread): news be damned.

Rockwell is all about 'compared to what' in a world of moving targets, but what I appreciate most about him is that he recognizes and demonstrates that newer isn't always better in his reviews.

Frankly, I like his attitude, and his reviews generally save time lost in long Google searches. He is always a good place to start. It's up to you decide if you've had enough already.